4 ms·

they are on point regarding people moving rather than dying, but that kinda proves the point that situations can and do get worse sometimes for a whole generati

they are on point regarding people moving rather than dying, but that kinda proves the point that situations can and do get worse sometimes for a whole generation.

inglor_cz 1y ago
Historic sources indicate massive workforce (and military force) shortages where once were none, which means that the total population must have dropped significantly. Rome was able to field huge armies by the 3rd century BC already, originally sourced from the Italian peninsula alone. In contrast, when the Eastern Roman forces finally defeated the Goths in the 540s, they were unable to hold Italy against a relatively minor Langobard invasion in 568, which is estimated to some 20 000 warriors. Why? For the lack of soldiers. They just couldn't put together the necessary garrisons and feed them from local sources. That would have been unthinkable in 168. Anyone who would seriously want to conquer Italy at that time would have to field at least ten times as many soldiers. In contrast, the Eastern Roman Empire at home was still able to field massive armies and even send some expeditions overseas, because the more developed civilizational structure was still present there, and with it, much higher population density.
- thaumasiotes 1y ago
  > Rome was able to field huge armies by the 3rd century BC already, originally sourced from the Italian peninsula alone. That's true, but the contrast to other contemporary states is not felt to be one of population size. Rather, the Romans were able to mobilize a much larger share of their subject population into the army.
  - inglor_cz 1y ago
    This would be an interesting debate, but it is after midnight here, so I will be going to sleep shortly. Basically, yes, but also no. There is a huge difference between being able to mobilize a large portion of your population for a short time vs. keeping the standing army indefinitely. With the latter, various intrinsic economic limitations will bite. Rome started with the "big temporary armies" model, but slowly transitioned into "big permanent armies" model, which required a lot of support from civilians. Professional soldiers are economically unproductive; they have to be fed, clothed and provided with weapons. Just the necessary smelting of iron in order to equip a single legion would be a lot of work for blacksmiths, miners and lumberjacks who produced the necessary wood for charcoal. If a premodern empire can field tens of thousands of iron-clad professional soldiers indefinitely, it must have a lot of civilian workers supporting that army. Literally millions. The precipitous drop in the size of field armies in the Early Middle Ages is a good indication of the precipitous drop of the entire economy which would prop them up.
    - hermitcrab 1y ago
      >If a premodern empire can field tens of thousands of iron-clad professional soldiers indefinitely, it must have a lot of civilian workers supporting that army. Or it must continually conquer new territories to plunder and tax. And that was the Roman model. But finally the empire got too big to manage with the technology of the day. They weren't able to conquer new territories and that meant they could not afford the huge professiomal army. Which led to the collapse of the empire in the west. Or you could argue that it just morphed into the Roman catholic church. (Not a historian, just been reading a bit about this recently)
      - inglor_cz 1y ago
        With two exceptions (Britain and Dacia), the Roman empire mostly ran out of interesting neighbours to conquer by 1 AD. Britain was considered Claudius' vanity project and probably was, on the net, an economic loss. Dacia was abandoned quite early precisely because it wasn't interesting enough to defend. The legions remained pretty big long (centuries) after the expansion phase ceased.
        hermitcrab 1y ago
        >With two exceptions (Britain and Dacia), the Roman empire mostly ran out of interesting neighbours to conquer by 1 AD. The Romans spent centuries after that trying to conquer the Persians (Parthians/Sassanids). > Britain was considered Claudius' vanity project and probably was, on the net, an economic loss. Apparently there were 3 legions in Britain, which was (per conquered person) more than any other Roman territory. Certainly a lot for a damp island with some tin. ;0)
        inglor_cz 1y ago
        "trying" That is the point, though. An interesting neighbour to conquer is one which looks wealthy enough (no sense in conquering cold northern marshes full of mosquitos), and is weak enough so that you may actually conquer him and hold the territory without overextending yourself. Most Roman neighbours by 1 AD would not pass the first test. The Persians would absolutely ace the first test, but they were equals to the Romans when it came to military prowess, and a danger to be reckoned with. As a result, the Eastern border was, overall, a source of weakness rather than profit. Modern MBAs would probably call the Roman-Persian border a "cost center".
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- Muromec 1y ago
  I'm only talking about the actual empire collapse I saw myself, no the Rome

they are on point regarding people moving rather than dying, but that kinda proves the point that situations can and do get worse sometimes for a whole generation.

inglor_cz 1y ago

Historic sources indicate massive workforce (and military force) shortages where once were none, which means that the total population must have dropped significantly. Rome was able to field huge armies by the 3rd century BC already, originally sourced from the Italian peninsula alone. In contrast, when the Eastern Roman forces finally defeated the Goths in the 540s, they were unable to hold Italy against a relatively minor Langobard invasion in 568, which is estimated to some 20 000 warriors. Why? For the lack of soldiers. They just couldn't put together the necessary garrisons and feed them from local sources. That would have been unthinkable in 168. Anyone who would seriously want to conquer Italy at that time would have to field at least ten times as many soldiers. In contrast, the Eastern Roman Empire at home was still able to field massive armies and even send some expeditions overseas, because the more developed civilizational structure was still present there, and with it, much higher population density.

thaumasiotes 1y ago
> Rome was able to field huge armies by the 3rd century BC already, originally sourced from the Italian peninsula alone. That's true, but the contrast to other contemporary states is not felt to be one of population size. Rather, the Romans were able to mobilize a much larger share of their subject population into the army.
- inglor_cz 1y ago
  This would be an interesting debate, but it is after midnight here, so I will be going to sleep shortly. Basically, yes, but also no. There is a huge difference between being able to mobilize a large portion of your population for a short time vs. keeping the standing army indefinitely. With the latter, various intrinsic economic limitations will bite. Rome started with the "big temporary armies" model, but slowly transitioned into "big permanent armies" model, which required a lot of support from civilians. Professional soldiers are economically unproductive; they have to be fed, clothed and provided with weapons. Just the necessary smelting of iron in order to equip a single legion would be a lot of work for blacksmiths, miners and lumberjacks who produced the necessary wood for charcoal. If a premodern empire can field tens of thousands of iron-clad professional soldiers indefinitely, it must have a lot of civilian workers supporting that army. Literally millions. The precipitous drop in the size of field armies in the Early Middle Ages is a good indication of the precipitous drop of the entire economy which would prop them up.
  - hermitcrab 1y ago
    >If a premodern empire can field tens of thousands of iron-clad professional soldiers indefinitely, it must have a lot of civilian workers supporting that army. Or it must continually conquer new territories to plunder and tax. And that was the Roman model. But finally the empire got too big to manage with the technology of the day. They weren't able to conquer new territories and that meant they could not afford the huge professiomal army. Which led to the collapse of the empire in the west. Or you could argue that it just morphed into the Roman catholic church. (Not a historian, just been reading a bit about this recently)
    - inglor_cz 1y ago
      With two exceptions (Britain and Dacia), the Roman empire mostly ran out of interesting neighbours to conquer by 1 AD. Britain was considered Claudius' vanity project and probably was, on the net, an economic loss. Dacia was abandoned quite early precisely because it wasn't interesting enough to defend. The legions remained pretty big long (centuries) after the expansion phase ceased.
      - hermitcrab 1y ago
        >With two exceptions (Britain and Dacia), the Roman empire mostly ran out of interesting neighbours to conquer by 1 AD. The Romans spent centuries after that trying to conquer the Persians (Parthians/Sassanids). > Britain was considered Claudius' vanity project and probably was, on the net, an economic loss. Apparently there were 3 legions in Britain, which was (per conquered person) more than any other Roman territory. Certainly a lot for a damp island with some tin. ;0)
        inglor_cz 1y ago
        "trying" That is the point, though. An interesting neighbour to conquer is one which looks wealthy enough (no sense in conquering cold northern marshes full of mosquitos), and is weak enough so that you may actually conquer him and hold the territory without overextending yourself. Most Roman neighbours by 1 AD would not pass the first test. The Persians would absolutely ace the first test, but they were equals to the Romans when it came to military prowess, and a danger to be reckoned with. As a result, the Eastern border was, overall, a source of weakness rather than profit. Modern MBAs would probably call the Roman-Persian border a "cost center".
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
Muromec 1y ago
I'm only talking about the actual empire collapse I saw myself, no the Rome